Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #159178 > unrolled thread
| Started by | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-10-15 08:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 75 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 08:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 08:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 14:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 15:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 16:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> - 2015-10-15 21:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 22:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 10:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 09:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 06:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 23:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> - 2015-10-16 00:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 09:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 10:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-16 11:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2015-10-16 16:30 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 23:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 18:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-17 21:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-17 23:00 +0200
Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 12:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 17:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 18:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 18:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-18 21:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 21:20 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-19 05:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 22:00 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-18 23:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 09:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-19 18:20 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 23:40 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-20 09:30 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> - 2015-10-22 02:10 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-19 10:50 +0200
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer] Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-19 12:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Lisi Reisz <lisi.reisz@gmail.com> - 2015-10-18 00:00 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-18 01:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2015-10-18 09:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> - 2015-10-18 10:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-17 21:40 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Martin Smith <lists@rakupottery.org.uk> - 2015-10-15 09:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:10 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2015-10-15 10:20 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer rlharris@oplink.net - 2015-10-15 10:50 +0200
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer Brian <ad44@cityscape.co.uk> - 2015-10-15 15:40 +0200
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjXN0-1dR-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159204 |
Quoting rlharris@oplink.net (rlharris@oplink.net): > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the details. > > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP > server of the ISP. If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden behind desks and boxes ... in the office"? If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there, and your colleague is using wireless, then there's likely to be an unused ethernet socket on it which you should be able to connect to your colleague's computer. If that computer doesn't have one, does it have a plain old parallel port? Bit old-fashioned but there we go. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjZ2p-3bG-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159211 |
On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote: > Quoting rlharris@oplink.net (rlharris@oplink.net): >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is >> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the >> DHCP server of the ISP. > If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden > behind desks and boxes ... in the office"? ... > If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there I have no idea what is behind the desks and boxes, except that which I have been told by the ISP. According to the ISP, there is one device connected to an external antenna. The device is a radio receiver (not Wi-Fi) which has a single ethernet jack and delivers a single IP address. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 06:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk4v8-35C-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159224 |
Quoting rlharris@oplink.net (rlharris@oplink.net): > On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote: > > Quoting rlharris@oplink.net (rlharris@oplink.net): > >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > >> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the > >> DHCP server of the ISP. > > If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden > > behind desks and boxes ... in the office"? > ... > > If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there > > I have no idea what is behind the desks and boxes, except that which I > have been told by the ISP. According to the ISP, there is one device > connected to an external antenna. The device is a radio receiver (not > Wi-Fi) which has a single ethernet jack and delivers a single IP address. Ah, I misunderstood your first post as you wrote they. It sounds a bit like my uncle in Virginia where the local computer shop transmits a signal to the few people in the village who have the internet. It might be what they call Wisp. Sounds to me like your spare router is a good solution. As it's just a router, not one of those combined modem/routers (which I don't like), it's easy to disconnect your colleague's computer and attach the router's WAN in its place. You might want to configure the wireless anyway so that you can use it yourself when you're there, turning it off when you leave. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjXN1-1dR-29@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159204 |
Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500 rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the details. You're welcome. > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP > server of the ISP. > > So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and > configure a router. And force it to obtain that lease from ISP's DHCP, I presume. > My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I > understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose > include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any recommendations as to > brand and model? Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as <your_favorite_expletive_here> (and require special training). Cheap models are spyware-ridden. Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on it. Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle. Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware. Of course, you can do it old-fachioned style too - just get another conventional PC with several NICs, and put Debian on it. But reliability of such "solution" is something that's left to be desired (and not because of Debian, of course :). Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 23:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjY6m-1PP-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159213 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300 Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> wrote: > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as > <your_favorite_expletive_here> (and require special training). Cheap > models are spyware-ridden. > Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to > design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on > it. > Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything > else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle. > > Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless > necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you > are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware. > Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more spyware-ridden than Windows? -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 23:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjYg3-217-43@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159216 |
Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:12:58 +0100 Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300 > Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as > > <your_favorite_expletive_here> (and require special training). Cheap > > models are spyware-ridden. > > Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to > > design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on > > it. > > Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything > > else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle. > > > > Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless > > necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you > > are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware. > > > > Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing > between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more > spyware-ridden than Windows? I agree that anything including D-Link instead of a router would be an improvement over a current situation. But since OP has a freedom to choose, why not choose a good thing instead of known bad one? Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 00:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjYSK-30t-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159218 |
On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:24 pm, Reco wrote: >> Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing >> between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more >> spyware-ridden than Windows? > But since OP has a freedom to choose, > why not choose a good thing instead of known bad one? I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand the issues. However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow. The WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing. And I plan to turn off the Wi-Fi radio. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 00:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjZc7-3ni-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159221 |
rlharris@oplink.net composed on 2015-10-15 17:06 (UTC-0500): > I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand > the issues. However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow. The > WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing. An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP. Why you failed with that switch I have no idea. It should have worked, unless one of the ethernet cables was in fact a crossover cable or otherwise a bad cable. With two regular ethernet cables, either original switch or the WRT110 should behave just like a crossover cable connection directly between printer and PC's NIC. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 01:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjZF8-3XH-13@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159226 |
On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN > nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should > function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP. Perhaps I do not understand, but I (in my revised plan) I intend to connect the WAN port of the WRT110 to the ethernet port of the ISP-supplied radio (DHCP ip address 192.168.100.3) and to plug the computer and printer into the LAN ports of the WRT110. My goal is to allow the computer to communicate on the one hand with the ISP, and, on the other hand, with the printer. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk7Mm-7Tn-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159227 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:47:22 -0500 rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a > > WAN nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it > > should function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned > > in your OP. > > Perhaps I do not understand, but I (in my revised plan) I intend to > connect the WAN port of the WRT110 to the ethernet port of the > ISP-supplied radio (DHCP ip address 192.168.100.3) and to plug the > computer and printer into the LAN ports of the WRT110. > > My goal is to allow the computer to communicate on the one hand with > the ISP, and, on the other hand, with the printer. > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original printer's address. Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if not, you know what it is. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 10:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk8p5-t0-19@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159244 |
On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original > printer's address. That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was assigned by the DHCP server of the ISP. > Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if > not, you know what it is. If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything else. However, in another network about a year ago I plugged the WAN port of a Wi-Fi router into the BLUE port of IPCop, and was using NAT and DHCP of the Wi-Fi router together with a wired network on BLUE, so I am confident that this setup is going to work. For me, this has been an enlightening experience; and, from the standpoint of time expended, expensive. I am grateful to have received help from you and the others who frequent this list. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 11:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qk9Eu-2dv-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159247 |
On 16/10/2015 09:13, rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: >> Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if >> not, you know what it is. > > If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The > day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to > be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything > else. > If Windows can do it, so can a router with a DHCP client. My Linksys router is not currently used and is somewhere in my loft, and I can't recall the model number, but it certainly picked up the WAN address by DHCP. I still have a reservation in my DHCP server for it. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkeb8-uX-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159247 |
Quoting rlharris@oplink.net (rlharris@oplink.net): > On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: > > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting > > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original > > printer's address. > > That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was > assigned by the DHCP server of the ISP. > > > Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if > > not, you know what it is. > > If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The > day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to > be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything > else. One of the first configuration screens in the router will be the WAN/Internet configuration where the router will need to know if you have to login to the ISP (copy credentials from the Windows machine) and how to get its IP address. Most people will get theirs dynamically from the ISP. The fact that the address they issue is in a private range doesn't make any difference to you if you're not running an external service for the Internet. On the LAN side of the router, it (the router) will run another private network. If you run it on 192.168.100.xx then the fact that it's the same range as the WAN is really no more than a coincidence. They are separate private networks. Personally, I would run 192.168.1.xx on the LAN because (a) I suspect more than half the world does and (b) my router has no DNS server built into it, so I have to maintain /etc/hosts on my machines. I like the numbers there to be instantly and instinctively recognisable as host IP#s. One less thing to remember. Cheers, David.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe <joe@jretrading.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 23:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjXWF-1Ez-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159204 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500 rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the > details. > > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the > DHCP server of the ISP. > > So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and > configure a router. > > My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but > I understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I > suppose include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any > recommendations as to brand and model? > Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK, though I've seen many people speak ill of Belkin. TP-Link probably do the widest range of low-cost network gear. I have a Linksys/Cisco cable router/WAP that's OK apart from flaky firmware concerning RADIUS, but few small networks go there. I picked it for being the cheapest RADIUS-capable WAP I could find... Just make sure it's a cable router i.e. that the WAN connection isn't a DSL modem, they're probably more common in some parts of the world than in the UK, where there's little call for them. You will certainly want NAT and DHCP, but I'd expect all cable routers to do those, and once you have NAT there's no point in leaving out a packet-filtering firewall. It's probably a good idea to have a bit more control of what goes in and out than whatever the ISP provides, which may be nothing. You start getting picky about routers when you need to handle the more exotic protocols, such as VPN and some online games. If your associate is likely to need anything of that kind, you'll need to study the specs and reviews for supported protocols. Something to consider is that the Windows computer can do simple NAT routing, with an additional network card (assuming it's a tower). Last time I tried that was with XP, but it still seems to exist: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows-8/using-ics-internet-connection-sharing The Windows machine will do DHCP, but I think it's hard-coded to one network. This should not be a problem, it used to be 192.168.1.0 in XP days. -- Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rlharris@oplink.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-16 00:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjZ2p-3bG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159214 |
On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:03 pm, Joe wrote: > Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK, ... Thanks, Joe. I am saving this email for the next time I need a router. Russ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 22:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjX0C-8R-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159180 |
Reco a écrit : > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > printer uses DHCP for configuration. /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and DHCP requests are sent to the broadcast address 255.255.255.255. 0.0.0.0 is the client source address until it obtains an IP address from the server.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-15 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qjXtE-Qa-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159205 |
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:53:29 +0200 Pascal Hambourg <pascal@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: > Reco a écrit : > > > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > > printer uses DHCP for configuration. > > /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and > DHCP requests are sent to the broadcast address 255.255.255.255. > > 0.0.0.0 is the client source address until it obtains an IP address from > the server. My mistake, thank you for the correction. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkC3M-21m-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159180 |
Hi. On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:09:11 -0400 "John D. Hendrickson" <johnandsara2@cox.net> wrote: > Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 > > rlharris@oplink.net wrote: > > > >> Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > >> install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > >> consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think > >> also is router) and an ethernet switch. > >> > >> Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > >> 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated > >> an ip address of 192.168.1.201. > > > > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? > > What about printer's MAC? > > > > > >> It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the > >> ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet". > >> > >> Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie > >> (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet > >> (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. > > > > NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task. > > A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient > > for such things. > > > > > >> And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. > >> If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I > >> think that the printer should utilize DHCP. > > > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > > printer uses DHCP for configuration. > > oh this new model supports DHCP has no security A security of a printer is a novel concept indeed. For HP, at least. > all you have to do is print a test page It's not my printer. I would never waste my money for this model. Or any printer made by HP, for that matter. > all questions are answered in the user and serviee manuals Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration. It was about Debian's network configuration. > which makes me wonder if this is not a fake question posted by and then > supposedly solved by the same person Dear John. While a good conspiracy theory should contain at least some wild accusations, it should also answer "who benefits" question and contain at least one eclectic assertion. Yours in kind of lacking in that regard. PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to send CC on this list. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 21:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkFbk-6Kv-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159322 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote: > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to > send CC on this list. Reco, before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or the "Mail-Followup-To" header. In a "no subscription required" mailing list it makes some sense to cc the original posters, as one doesn't know whether they'll receive a copy otherwise. Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works like a charm. Regards - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYilYoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kah4ACfZk9sjZIPREest0ESTwuTmjOW uDAAn38+yPQCQMhxmCMrBP7ooMysWMw+ =Glj+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-17 23:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <qkGK6-oM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #159337 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:38:02 +0200 <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to > > send CC on this list. > > Reco, > > before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or > the "Mail-Followup-To" header. In a "no subscription required" mailing > list it makes some sense to cc the original posters, as one doesn't know > whether they'll receive a copy otherwise. You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To? http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/ Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient. Reco
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web